My Modified LC plan

I've been a LCer for almost 10 years. Lost 50 lbs, and gradually put
back 30 of it over the years. I won't blame the WOE as much as a few
injuries and health issues that made me very sedentary. After all these
years of various dieting, I've come to the conclusion that pretty much
anything will work, if you stick to it. My problem was always quantity. When
I did low fat, I thought I could eat all the bread and pasta I wanted but no
butter. When I was strict low carb I thought I could eat all the fat and
meat I wanted. Now I do modified low carb, and for the first time portion
control. I still do not eat any sugar, but will eat some whole wheat, brown
rice, and fruit. I started walking 3-4 miles almost every day, and have
lost 20 lbs in 2 months doing this.
Here's my biggest solution to the problem of preparing & cooking. I
know many of you here are stay at home folks that think nothing of whipping
up cauliflower potatoes, cheese cake, fresh veggies and various other
goodies. Many of us work and have busy lives and find it too hard to take
the time 7 days a week. I got the idea from flipping channels and a guy that
cals himself The Diet Detective. He had an obese busy actor buy prepared
meals at the supermarket. Taste test until he found things that he liked
(yes some of them are awful), and then stocked his freezer with them. He
used this on those nights when he was too challenged to cook and may have
grabbed too much of something bad. I did this using lower carb, low sodium
frozen meals. Works like a charm for me.


--
"When you win, nothing hurts".... Joe Namath

JK
www.MyConeyIslandMemories.com

Congratulations on the weight loss, but I would like to add that many of us
work from home, and in the home as well. We also have busy lives, but
sometimes you just have to decide what's more important and do it. You seem
to have found your best solution for you, and I hope you continue to have
success.

Cheri


"JKconey" wrote in message
...
I've been a LCer for almost 10 years. Lost 50 lbs, and gradually put
back 30 of it over the years. I won't blame the WOE as much as a few
injuries and health issues that made me very sedentary. After all these
years of various dieting, I've come to the conclusion that pretty much
anything will work, if you stick to it. My problem was always quantity.
When I did low fat, I thought I could eat all the bread and pasta I wanted
but no butter. When I was strict low carb I thought I could eat all the
fat and meat I wanted. Now I do modified low carb, and for the first time
portion control. I still do not eat any sugar, but will eat some whole
wheat, brown rice, and fruit. I started walking 3-4 miles almost every
day, and have lost 20 lbs in 2 months doing this.
Here's my biggest solution to the problem of preparing & cooking. I
know many of you here are stay at home folks that think nothing of
whipping up cauliflower potatoes, cheese cake, fresh veggies and various
other goodies. Many of us work and have busy lives and find it too hard to
take the time 7 days a week. I got the idea from flipping channels and a
guy that cals himself The Diet Detective. He had an obese busy actor buy
prepared meals at the supermarket. Taste test until he found things that
he liked (yes some of them are awful), and then stocked his freezer with
them. He used this on those nights when he was too challenged to cook and
may have grabbed too much of something bad. I did this using lower carb,
low sodium frozen meals. Works like a charm for me.


--
"When you win, nothing hurts".... Joe Namath

JK
www.MyConeyIslandMemories.com

In article ,
"JKconey" wrote:

I've been a LCer for almost 10 years. Lost 50 lbs, and gradually put
back 30 of it over the years. I won't blame the WOE as much as a few
injuries and health issues that made me very sedentary. After all these
years of various dieting, I've come to the conclusion that pretty much
anything will work, if you stick to it. My problem was always quantity. When
I did low fat, I thought I could eat all the bread and pasta I wanted but no
butter. When I was strict low carb I thought I could eat all the fat and
meat I wanted. Now I do modified low carb, and for the first time portion
control. I still do not eat any sugar, but will eat some whole wheat, brown
rice, and fruit. I started walking 3-4 miles almost every day, and have
lost 20 lbs in 2 months doing this.
Here's my biggest solution to the problem of preparing & cooking. I
know many of you here are stay at home folks that think nothing of whipping
up cauliflower potatoes, cheese cake, fresh veggies and various other
goodies. Many of us work and have busy lives and find it too hard to take
the time 7 days a week. I got the idea from flipping channels and a guy that
cals himself The Diet Detective. He had an obese busy actor buy prepared
meals at the supermarket. Taste test until he found things that he liked
(yes some of them are awful), and then stocked his freezer with them. He
used this on those nights when he was too challenged to cook and may have
grabbed too much of something bad. I did this using lower carb, low sodium
frozen meals. Works like a charm for me.

Bad idea, most processed foods lack the phytonutrients (mainly
anti-oxidants) of real food. Processed foods are primarily made with GMO
plants (corn fractions, and soy oil or cotton oil). You can avoid GMO
products by buying "organic". GMO plants contain antibiotic markers that
can lead to bacterial resistance to them, and they contain Cabbage
Mosaic Virus which can, at least theoretically, turn on part of the 98%
of your DNA which is dormant. This could be genes for web feet or a long
dormant viruse. They certainly create exotic proteins, that can lead to
allergies.

The secret to good eating is "planed overs". Make a double or triple
serving of something health, and then freeze individual portions. A
couple of days of cooking real food could feed you through the week.
Then of course there is raw veggies, with or without meat (avoiding
CAFOs is a whole other problem).
--
Racial injustice, war, urban blight, and environmental rape have a common denominator in our exploitative economic system.*
~Channing E. Phillips

http://tinyurl.com/o63ruj
http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm

On Aug 14, 2:24*pm, Billy wrote:
In article ,





*"JKconey" wrote:
* * I've been a LCer for almost 10 years. Lost 50 lbs, and gradually put
back 30 of it over the years. *I won't blame the WOE as much as a few
injuries and health issues that made me very sedentary. *After all these
years of various dieting, I've come to the conclusion that pretty much
anything will work, if you stick to it. My problem was always quantity. When
I did low fat, I thought I could eat all the bread and pasta I wanted but no
butter. When I was strict low carb I thought I could eat all the fat and
meat I wanted. Now I do modified low carb, and for the first time portion
control. I still do not eat any sugar, but will eat some whole wheat, brown
rice, and fruit. *I started walking 3-4 miles almost every day, and have
lost 20 lbs in 2 months doing this.
* * *Here's my biggest solution to the problem of preparing & cooking. I
know many of you here are stay at home folks that think nothing of whipping
up cauliflower potatoes, cheese cake, fresh veggies and various other
goodies. Many of us work and have busy lives and find it too hard to take
the time 7 days a week. I got the idea from flipping channels and a guy that
cals himself The Diet Detective. He had an obese busy actor buy prepared
meals at the supermarket. Taste test until he found things that he liked
(yes some of them are awful), and then stocked his freezer with them. He
used this on those nights when he was too challenged to cook and may have
grabbed too much of something bad. I did this using lower carb, low sodium
frozen meals. Works like a charm for me.

Bad idea, most processed foods lack the phytonutrients (mainly
anti-oxidants) of real food. Processed foods are primarily made with GMO
plants (corn fractions, and soy oil or cotton oil). You can avoid GMO
products by buying "organic". GMO plants contain antibiotic markers that
can lead to bacterial resistance to them,

and they contain Cabbage
Mosaic Virus which can, at least theoretically, turn on part of the 98%
of your DNA which is dormant. This could be genes for web feet or a long
dormant viruse. They certainly create exotic proteins, that can lead to
allergies.

A link please for a peer reviewed scientific study that showed GMO
crops lead to allergies. Also, the issue of possible antibiotic
resistance has been investigated many times, and AFAIK, every
reputable peer reviewed study concluded that while a theoretical
possibility, from a practical standpoint, it isn't an issue for a
number of valid reasons.

Organic products are fine if you want to buy them and can afford to
pay 2X. In developed countries, many people can afford that
option. But it's not the case in 3rd world countries, where GMO
crops offer big advantages to feed hungry populations. Two of which
are higher yields and less use of pesticides, which is good for the
environment and cost.

This issue is like so many others. You can focus on alleged bad
aspects, that have little basis and blow them all out of proportion.
Or you can look at the big picture, which offers many benefits and
close to zero risk.

Also, there have been a couple of recent studies that showed that
organic produce had exactly the same nutritional content as the
equivalent regular crop. They do have the advantage of not having
chemicals used to produce them.. But I can only wonder, in this day
where everyone is cutting corners on ethics, how much produce that is
sold as organic actually has some chemical used on it at some
point.

To JK, I'd say if he chooses his store bought foods very carefully,
there is no reason they can't be part of a LC plan. The problems are
that there aren't that many LC choices and in general, the ones that
are available don't taste very good, especially the frozen ones.
The foods prepared in the store and sold non frozen, where available,
can be good choices. Here, the local Shoprite has wood grilled
chicken, shrimp, fish, vegetables, etc. And most supermarkets have
roasted chickens available which are an excellent choice.



The secret to good eating is "planed overs". Make a double or triple
serving of something health, and then freeze individual portions. A
couple of days of cooking real food could feed you through the week.

For those that don't have time to cook everyday, consider buying a
freezer, cooking a few times a month, and making enough to freeze so
that you have it for future use. I do that with everything from
cauliflower mashed to sauerbratten and red cabbage.




Then of course there is raw veggies, with or without meat (avoiding
CAFOs is a whole other problem).
--
Racial injustice, war, urban blight, and environmental rape have a common denominator in our exploitative economic system.*
~Channing E. Phillips

Spoken like a true commie, who ignores that this imperfect economic
system, when given a chance, has lifted most of mankind from a hard
existence to the greatest lifestyle the world has ever achieved. And
that no one has ever come up with a better system. Do you always
focus on the perceived negatives and overlook the positives?

In article
,
wrote:

On Aug 14, 2:24*pm, Billy wrote:
In article ,





*"JKconey" wrote:
* * I've been a LCer for almost 10 years. Lost 50 lbs, and gradually put
back 30 of it over the years. *I won't blame the WOE as much as a few
injuries and health issues that made me very sedentary. *After all these
years of various dieting, I've come to the conclusion that pretty much
anything will work, if you stick to it. My problem was always quantity.
When
I did low fat, I thought I could eat all the bread and pasta I wanted but
no
butter. When I was strict low carb I thought I could eat all the fat and
meat I wanted. Now I do modified low carb, and for the first time portion
control. I still do not eat any sugar, but will eat some whole wheat,
brown
rice, and fruit. *I started walking 3-4 miles almost every day, and have
lost 20 lbs in 2 months doing this.
* * *Here's my biggest solution to the problem of preparing & cooking. I
know many of you here are stay at home folks that think nothing of
whipping
up cauliflower potatoes, cheese cake, fresh veggies and various other
goodies. Many of us work and have busy lives and find it too hard to take
the time 7 days a week. I got the idea from flipping channels and a guy
that
cals himself The Diet Detective. He had an obese busy actor buy prepared
meals at the supermarket. Taste test until he found things that he liked
(yes some of them are awful), and then stocked his freezer with them. He
used this on those nights when he was too challenged to cook and may have
grabbed too much of something bad. I did this using lower carb, low
sodium
frozen meals. Works like a charm for me.

Bad idea, most processed foods lack the phytonutrients (mainly
anti-oxidants) of real food. Processed foods are primarily made with GMO
plants (corn fractions, and soy oil or cotton oil). You can avoid GMO
products by buying "organic". GMO plants contain antibiotic markers that
can lead to bacterial resistance to them,

and they contain Cabbage
Mosaic Virus which can, at least theoretically, turn on part of the 98%
of your DNA which is dormant. This could be genes for web feet or a long
dormant viruse. They certainly create exotic proteins, that can lead to
allergies.

A link please for a peer reviewed scientific study that showed GMO
crops lead to allergies. Also, the issue of possible antibiotic
resistance has been investigated many times, and AFAIK, every
reputable peer reviewed study concluded that while a theoretical
possibility, from a practical standpoint, it isn't an issue for a
number of valid reasons.
I would direct you to the book "Seeds of Deception"
http://www.amazon.com/Seeds-Deceptio...ly-Engineered/
dp/0972966587/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1250372822&sr=8-1 and the
discussion there about the insertion of genes into eucaryotes and the
roll of the antibiotic marker, Cabbage Mosaic Virus, and the
spliceosome. Also see the work of Árpád Pusztai.

Organic products are fine if you want to buy them and can afford to
pay 2X. In developed countries, many people can afford that
option. But it's not the case in 3rd world countries, where GMO
crops offer big advantages to feed hungry populations. Two of which
are higher yields and less use of pesticides, which is good for the
environment and cost.

Exposed: the great GM crops myth
http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...ed-the-great-g
m-crops-myth-812179.html
http://www.countercurrents.org/sharma210309.htm

Actually the resistance to Roundup (whatever) allows the use of more
pesticides. THe pesticides and herbicides in turn kill off the soil
ecology exacerbating the loss of top soil. Turns out the less top soil
you have, the more chemical fertilizers you have to use, so you end up
having to use more and more chemferts as the topsoil disappears, while
at the same time poisoning the water supply for people, and creating
huge dead zones in the ocean where nothing can live.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_zone_(ecology)

So GMOs don't give higher yields (they usually allow longer shelf life
and show less bruising, nothing to do with flavor or nutrition), and
they are a disaster for the environment.

This issue is like so many others. You can focus on alleged bad
aspects, that have little basis and blow them all out of proportion.
Or you can look at the big picture, which offers many benefits and
close to zero risk.
I would just like to choose my food, but the government won't allow the
identifying of GMO foods. Your only chance to avoid them is to eat
organic. You'll also get to avoid loading your body with more unnatural
chemicals. http://www.foodnews.org/fulllist.php

Also, there have been a couple of recent studies that showed that
organic produce had exactly the same nutritional content as the
equivalent regular crop. They do have the advantage of not having
chemicals used to produce them.. But I can only wonder, in this day
where everyone is cutting corners on ethics, how much produce that is
sold as organic actually has some chemical used on it at some
point.

Commercially grown fruits and vegetables are less expensive, are
prettier to look at, contain approximately 10-50% of the nutrients found
in organic produce, are often depleted in enzymes, and are contaminated
with a variety of herbicides, pesticides and other agricultural
chemicals.
Journal of Applied Nutrition, Vol. 45, #1, 1993.

http://www.rawfoodlife.com/Articles_...ommercial_food
/organic_vs_commercial_food.htm

When French researchers compared the differences in lycopene, vitamin C
and polyphenol content of organic versus conventional tomatoes, they
found that the organic tomatoes had somewhat higher levels of vitamin C
and polyphenols, which was not surprising given that the tomatoes
probably produce these to fend of pests. If they get no help from
commercial pesticides, they will produce more of the natural variety.
- Dr. Joseph Schwarcz
chair of the ACCN Editorial Board,
Schwarcz is one of North America's foremost educators and is the
director of McGill University's Office for Science and Society, which is
dedicated to demystifying science for the public, the media, and
students. Schwarcz is also a professor in the chemistry department and
teaches nutrition and alternative medicine in McGill's Medical School.

http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache...edmedicalnetwo
rk.com/researchdocs/Organic%2520vs%2520Comm%2520Foods.doc+%E2%80%A8%E2 %80
%A8COMMERCIAL+VS+ORGANIC+FOOD%E2%80%A8:+Mon.,+17+J an+2000&cd=1&hl=en&ct=c
lnk&gl=us&client=safari

To JK, I'd say if he chooses his store bought foods very carefully,
there is no reason they can't be part of a LC plan. The problems are
that there aren't that many LC choices and in general, the ones that
are available don't taste very good, especially the frozen ones.
The foods prepared in the store and sold non frozen, where available,
can be good choices. Here, the local Shoprite has wood grilled
chicken, shrimp, fish, vegetables, etc. And most supermarkets have
roasted chickens available which are an excellent choice.

As a rule, processed foods are more ³energy dense² than fresh foods:
they contain less water and fiber but more added fat and sugar, which
makes them both less filling and more fattening. These particular
calories also happen to be the least healthful ones in the marketplace,
which is why we call the foods that contain them ³junk.² Drewnowski
concluded that the rules of the food game in America are organized in
such a way that if you are eating on a budget, the most rational
economic strategy is to eat badly ‹ and get fat.

This perverse state of affairs is not, as you might think, the
inevitable result of the free market. Compared with a bunch of carrots,
a package of Twinkies, to take one iconic processed foodlike substance
as an example, is a highly complicated, high-tech piece of manufacture,
involving no fewer than 39 ingredients, many themselves elaborately
manufactured, as well as the packaging and a hefty marketing budget. So
how can the supermarket possibly sell a pair of these synthetic
cream-filled pseudocakes for less than a bunch of roots?

For the answer, you need look no farther than the farm bill. This
resolutely unglamorous and head-hurtingly complicated piece of
legislation, which comes around roughly every five years and is about to
do so again, sets the rules for the American food system ‹ indeed, to a
considerable extent, for the world¹s food system. Among other things, it
determines which crops will be subsidized and which will not, and in the
case of the carrot and the Twinkie, the farm bill as currently written
offers a lot more support to the cake than to the root. Like most
processed foods, the Twinkie is basically a clever arrangement of
carbohydrates and fats teased out of corn, soybeans and wheat ‹ three of
the five commodity crops that the farm bill supports, to the tune of
some $25 billion a year. (Rice and cotton are the others.) For the last
several decades ‹ indeed, for about as long as the American waistline
has been ballooning ‹ U.S. agricultural policy has been designed in such
a way as to promote the overproduction of these five commodities,
especially corn and soy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/ma...ml?pagewanted=
1&ei=5090&en=e8328c69f0b3f4be&ex=1334894400&partne r=rssuserland&emc=rss


The secret to good eating is "planed overs". Make a double or triple
serving of something health, and then freeze individual portions. A
couple of days of cooking real food could feed you through the week.

For those that don't have time to cook everyday, consider buying a
freezer, cooking a few times a month, and making enough to freeze so
that you have it for future use. I do that with everything from
cauliflower mashed to sauerbratten and red cabbage.




Then of course there is raw veggies, with or without meat (avoiding
CAFOs is a whole other problem).
--
Racial injustice, war, urban blight, and environmental rape have a common
denominator in our exploitative economic system.*
~Channing E. Phillips

Spoken like a true commie, who ignores that this imperfect economic
system, when given a chance, has lifted most of mankind from a hard
existence to the greatest lifestyle the world has ever achieved. And
that no one has ever come up with a better system. Do you always
focus on the perceived negatives and overlook the positives?
³When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why
the poor have no food, they call you a communist.²
-Archbishop Helder Camara
--
Racial injustice, war, urban blight, and environmental rape have a common denominator in our exploitative economic system.*
~Channing E. Phillips

http://tinyurl.com/o63ruj
http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm

wrote in message
...
On Aug 14, 2:24 pm, Billy wrote:
In article ,






To JK, I'd say if he chooses his store bought foods very carefully,
there is no reason they can't be part of a LC plan. The problems are
that there aren't that many LC choices and in general, the ones that
are available don't taste very good, especially the frozen ones.


If you look around and audition various places and products, you can
find decent tasting fairly LC frozen meals. Try Trader Joes, Kashi frozen
entrees, etc etc. For those nit picking at this suggestion, (of course I'm
familiar with posters that want to know the .001 percent of carbs in
Splenda), this isn't a regular daily sustitute for home prepared food. It's
just another available choice to keep us from going off the plan and/or
overeating. My wife and I both work, and there are those nights when it's
nice to just throw it in the microwave, and know I'm only eating 280
calories of something I'm never going to cook myself. All it takes is one or
2 nights out of 7, to make me fail. Now I have a security net. I still eat
LC, but just not as crazy strict as I used to. I lost 20 lbs in 2 months, so
it's working.


--
"When you win, nothing hurts".... Joe Namath

JK
www.MyConeyIslandMemories.com

"JKconey" writes:

I've been a LCer for almost 10 years. Lost 50 lbs, and gradually
put back 30 of it over the years. I won't blame the WOE as much as a
few injuries and health issues that made me very sedentary. After all
these years of various dieting, I've come to the conclusion that
pretty much anything will work, if you stick to it. My problem was
always quantity. When I did low fat, I thought I could eat all the
bread and pasta I wanted but no butter. When I was strict low carb I
thought I could eat all the fat and meat I wanted. Now I do modified
low carb, and for the first time portion control.

There seems to be a contradiction here. You say you lost 50 pounds on
low-carb, and that you don't blame it for the weight you gained back.
But then you say you've decided that portion control is the real answer.
Why isn't the answer to simply redo what lost the 50 pounds the first
time? If you lost 50 pounds while eating all the fat and meat you
wanted, then it seems you *can* eat all the fat and meat you want.

Saying "anything will work if you stick to it" doesn't make much sense.
Will eating a gallon of ice cream every day work if I stick to it? If
something fails, sticking to it will only make it fail longer.


--
Aaron -- 285/241/200 -- aaron.baugher.biz

On Aug 15, 6:39Â*pm, Billy wrote:


A link please for a peer reviewed scientific study that showed GMO
crops lead to allergies. Â* Also, the issue of possible antibiotic
resistance has been investigated many times, and AFAIK, every
reputable peer reviewed study concluded that while a theoretical
possibility, from a practical standpoint, it isn't an issue for a
number of valid reasons.

I would direct you to the book "Seeds of Deception"
http://www.amazon.com/Seeds-Deceptio...ly-Engineered/
dp/0972966587/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1250372822&sr=8-1 and the
discussion there about the insertion of genes into eucaryotes and the
roll of the antibiotic marker, Cabbage Mosaic Virus, and the
spliceosome.

The link doesn't work. And surely you understand the difference
between books and peer reviewed studies. Just because someone writes
a book, doesn't establish anything. As an example, I can find you
books that say cholesterol is a significant risk factor in CHS and
others that say it matters not a wit.



Also see the work of �rpád Pusztai.

I took a look at it and it appears to be one study that he did that
wasn't even focused on GMO, but that happened to notice effects on
rats from GMO potatoes. The study was surrounded by controversy and
Pusztai apparently was fired from the institute.


That's one study, compared to how many that have found no effects?




Organic products are fine if you want to buy them and can afford to
pay 2X. Â* In developed countries, many people can afford that
option. Â* But it's not the case in 3rd world countries, where GMO
crops offer big advantages to feed hungry populations. Â* Â*Two of which
are higher yields and less use of pesticides, which is good for the
environment and cost.

Exposed: the great GM crops mythhttp://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/exposed-the-gre...
m-crops-myth-812179.htmlhttp://www.countercurrents.org/sharma210309.htm

Actually the resistance to Roundup (whatever) allows the use of more
pesticides.


Besides Roundup, GMO crops have been developed to be specifically
resistant to both insects and disease. That means farmers use LESS
chemicals because the crop is naturally resistant to insect and
disease. So, it's not true that in the case of all, or even most GMO
it leads to the use of more chemicals and in the specific case of
pesticides, it clearly leads to LESS being used. Again, you are
only looking at the negatives, because of obvious bias.

As far as Roundup, yes in that case it allows the crops to then be
sprayed with Roundup to kill weeds. But the question becomes how
much more yield do you then get, what would the farmer use to treat
the weeds if Roundup could not be used, etc.


Here's what the UN, which is clearly no mouthpiece for US business
interests has to say about GMO

http://www.fao.org/english/newsroom/focus/2003/gmo7.htm

Potential benefits for the environment

More food from less land: Improved productivity from GMOs might mean
that farmers in the next century won't have to bring so much marginal
land into cultivation.

GMOs might reduce the environmental impact of food production and
industrial processes: Genetically engineered resistance to pests and
diseases could greatly reduce the chemicals needed for crop
protection, and it is already happening. Farmers are growing maize,
cotton and potatoes that no longer have to be sprayed with the
bacterial insecticide Bacillus thuringiensis - because they produce
its insecticidal agent themselves





THe pesticides and herbicides in turn kill off the soil
ecology exacerbating the loss of top soil. Turns out the less top soil
you have, the more chemical fertilizers you have to use, so you end up
having to use more and more chemferts as the topsoil disappears, while
at the same time poisoning the water supply for people, and creating
huge dead zones in the ocean where nothing can live.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_zone_(ecology)

If we did not have those pesticides, herbicides, etc available, food
would cost a lot more and a lot more people in the world would be
starving. This more balanced view is expressed by the UN, as
opposed to the shrill voices on the extremes.





So GMOs don't give higher yields (they usually allow longer shelf life
and show less bruising, nothing to do with flavor or nutrition), and
they are a disaster for the environment.

If that were true, then you don't have to worry. Because farmers
would not pay more for GMO seed and use it if it did not produce
higher yields. So, obviously it does work.



This issue is like so many others. Â* You can focus on alleged bad
aspects, that have little basis and blow them all out of proportion.
Or you can look at the big picture, which offers many benefits and
close to zero risk.

I would just like to choose my food, but the government won't allow the
identifying of GMO foods. Your only chance to avoid them is to eat
organic. You'll also get to avoid loading your body with more unnatural
chemicals.http://www.foodnews.org/fulllist.php



Also, there have been a couple of recent studies that showed that
organic produce had exactly the same nutritional content as the
equivalent regular crop. Â* They do have the advantage of not having
chemicals used to produce them.. Â* But I can only wonder, in this day
where everyone is cutting corners on ethics, how much produce that is
sold as organic actually has some chemical used on it at some
point.

Commercially grown fruits and vegetables are less expensive, are
prettier to look at, contain approximately 10-50% of the nutrients found
in organic produce, are often depleted in enzymes, and are contaminated
with a variety of herbicides, pesticides and other agricultural
chemicals.

According to you. Now let's take a look at what some very credible
institutions have to say:

Mayo Clinic:
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/org...SECTIONGROUP=2

Nutrition. No conclusive evidence shows that organic food is more
nutritious than is conventionally grown food. And the USDA — even
though it certifies organic food — doesn't claim that these products
are safer or more nutritious.


http://redgreenandblue.org/2009/08/0...ial-uk-agency/

The Food Standards Agency in the UK has declared that, “… there are no
important differences in the nutrition content, or any additional
health benefits, of organic food when compared with conventionally
produced food.�

In a comprehensive study, researchers from the London School of
Hygiene and Tropical Medicine examined more than 50,000 studies on the
nutritional value of foods going back to 1958. Of these, 55 met the
criteria of the project. Dr Alan Dangour, the principal author,
commented on the marginal differences found during the studies, “A
small number of differences in nutrient content were found to exist …
but these are unlikely to be of any public health relevance. Our
review indicates that there is currently no evidence to support the
selection of organically over conventionally produced foods on the
basis of nutritional superiority.�


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0807082954.htm

ScienceDaily (Aug. 9, 2008) — New research in the latest issue of the
Society of Chemical Industry’s (SCI) Journal of the Science of Food
and Agriculture shows there is no evidence to support the argument
that organic food is better than food grown with the use of pesticides
and chemicals.

Dr Bügel says: ‘No systematic differences between cultivation systems
representing organic and conventional production methods were found
across the five crops so the study does not support the belief that
organically grown foodstuffs generally contain more major and trace
elements than conventionally grown foodstuffs.’






Journal of Applied Nutrition, Vol. 45, #1, 1993.

http://www.rawfoodlife.com/Articles_...vs_commercial_...


Another link that doesn't work.


When French researchers compared the differences in lycopene, vitamin C
and polyphenol content of organic versus conventional tomatoes, they
found that the organic tomatoes had somewhat higher levels of vitamin C
and polyphenols, which was not surprising given that the tomatoes
probably produce these to fend of pests. Â*If they get no help from
commercial pesticides, they will produce more of the natural variety.

Were these identical tomatoes grown two different ways or did they
just go out and buy some similar organic and non-organic? If it's the
latter it clearly has no validity. And at best they say "somewhat
higher levels of C and polyphenols, not exactly a ringing
endorsement.

There are plenty of these studies where one trial they find some minor
differences between organic and non-organic and then next study they
find no statistical difference . Again, it comes down to balance.
Here's a good example where a Rutgers food scientist discusses how
frequently these studies are taken out of context, only the ones
showing some difference are cited, etc.

http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsI...ews_detail.asp


- Dr. Joseph Schwarcz
chair of the ACCN Editorial Board,


To JK, I'd say if he chooses his store bought foods very carefully,
there is no reason they can't be part of a LC plan. Â* The problems are
that there aren't that many LC choices and in general, the ones that
are available don't taste very good, especially the frozen ones.
The foods prepared in the store and sold non frozen, where available,
can be good choices. Â* Here, the local Shoprite has wood grilled
chicken, shrimp, fish, vegetables, etc. Â* And most supermarkets have
roasted chickens available which are an excellent choice.

As a rule, processed foods are more ³energy dense² than fresh foods:
they contain less water and fiber but more added fat and sugar, which
makes them both less filling and more fattening. These particular
calories also happen to be the least healthful ones in the marketplace,

So now you're arguing in a LC newsgroup that fat is bad too? I don't
think JK's intent was to buy prepared foods that are loaded with
sugar. As others have pointed out, there are some prepared food
choices in most supermarkets that are fine for LC. Examples, which I
already cited are roasted chickens, grilled shrimp, chicken, fish,
vegs, all of which are available at my local supermarket.


which is why we call the foods that contain them ³junk.² Drewnowski
concluded that the rules of the food game in America are organized in
such a way that if you are eating on a budget, the most rational
economic strategy is to eat badly ‹ and get fat.

No surprise there. And your solution is what? Apread FUD by telling
them that non-organic is unsafe? HAve them eat organic food which
costs 2X more than the regular version and 3-4X the cost of junk food?



This perverse state of affairs is not, as you might think, the
inevitable result of the free market. Compared with a bunch of carrots,
a package of Twinkies, to take one iconic processed foodlike substance
as an example, is a highly complicated, high-tech piece of manufacture,
involving no fewer than 39 ingredients, many themselves elaborately
manufactured, as well as the packaging and a hefty marketing budget. So
how can the supermarket possibly sell a pair of these synthetic
cream-filled pseudocakes for less than a bunch of roots?

For the answer, you need look no farther than the farm bill. This
resolutely unglamorous and head-hurtingly complicated piece of
legislation, which comes around roughly every five years and is about to
do so again, sets the rules for the American food system ‹ indeed, to a
considerable extent, for the world¹s food system. Among other things, it
determines which crops will be subsidized and which will not, and in the
case of the carrot and the Twinkie, the farm bill as currently written
offers a lot more support to the cake than to the root. Like most
processed foods, the Twinkie is basically a clever arrangement of
carbohydrates and fats teased out of corn, soybeans and wheat ‹ three of
the five commodity crops that the farm bill supports, to the tune of
some $25 billion a year. (Rice and cotton are the others.) For the last
several decades ‹ indeed, for about as long as the American waistline
has been ballooning ‹ U.S. agricultural policy has been designed in such
a way as to promote the overproduction of these five commodities,
especially corn and soy.


Again, you need some sense of balance. I agree that farm subsidies
have the effect of somewhat lowering prices of grains and soybeans.
However, the effect on the price of products like twinkies isn't
huge. For proof you need only look at actual grain prices. For
example, wheat which is a principal ingredient of those twinkies,
tripled in price from 2004 to 2008. That tripling dwarfed any
effect of government subsidies, yet those twinkies were still
relatively modest in cost and obviously any impact on sales was very
small.

And the recent "overproduction" of corn and soy was targeted by the
govt not for food, but to generate ethanol and biodiesel for energy
usage. In the process the cost of all the grains, soybeans, corn,
etc went up about 3X. So, if price of these crops were as
significant in determining what people eat, then we should have seen a
big shift over to your roots. Yet, we did not. People are just
paying 2x for the same bag of Doritos.

wrote:
There seems to be a contradiction here. You say you lost 50 pounds on
low-carb, and that you don't blame it for the weight you gained back.
But then you say you've decided that portion control is the real answer.
Why isn't the answer to simply redo what lost the 50 pounds the first
time? If you lost 50 pounds while eating all the fat and meat you
wanted, then it seems you *can* eat all the fat and meat you want.

He's obviously looking for an approach that will help him lose weight without
excessively depriving him of beloved foods.

Saying "anything will work if you stick to it" doesn't make much sense.
Will eating a gallon of ice cream every day work if I stick to it? If
something fails, sticking to it will only make it fail longer.


Weight loss isn't just about eating what works; it's also about eating what
gives you pleasure. Too much pleasure and too little efficiency tends to yield
weight gain, while too much efficiency without pleasure may yield temporary
weight loss full of resentment and ill humor. Balance is really the key.

I'm just now coming down from a few weeks of people pleasing that made me
choose to go off South Beach for at least one meal each day. Just cutting out
refined sugar and flour has returned my body to the normalcy I recognize. I've
learned that I probably will never be able to tolerate sweets or refined flour
on a daily basis. Those treats must be infrequent and portion controlled, while
low-carb foods such as lean protein and vegetables can be pretty much consumed
as needed. The jury is still out on fruits and whole grains. I tend to feel
fine eating them, although my weight loss stalls if I eat them too often or in
excessive quantities. Sure, it would be easy for me to get strict and eliminate
every fruit, grain, sugar and refined flour food from my diet. But, I would get
absolutely no pleasure from eating that way. So, I'm trying to balance the
pleasure I derive from food with what my body needs to lose weight and stay
healthy.

Orlando

Orlando

In article
,
wrote:

On Aug 15, 6:39Â*pm, Billy wrote:


A link please for a peer reviewed scientific study that showed GMO
crops lead to allergies. Â* Also, the issue of possible antibiotic
resistance has been investigated many times, and AFAIK, every
reputable peer reviewed study concluded that while a theoretical
possibility, from a practical standpoint, it isn't an issue for a
number of valid reasons.

I would direct you to the book "Seeds of Deception"
http://www.amazon.com/Seeds-Deceptio...ly-Engineered/
dp/0972966587/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1250372822&sr=8-1 and the
discussion there about the insertion of genes into eucaryotes and the
roll of the antibiotic marker, Cabbage Mosaic Virus, and the
spliceosome.

The link doesn't work.
The link works fine. The problem must lie elsewhere, hmmmm.
And surely you understand the difference
between books and peer reviewed studies. Just because someone writes
a book, doesn't establish anything. As an example, I can find you
books that say cholesterol is a significant risk factor in CHS and
others that say it matters not a wit.
I didn't agree to let you be the judge of the material. I'm telling you
of some of the materials that have lead me to my conclusions. Let me
also mention
Good Calories, Bad Calories: Fats, Carbs, and the Controversial Science
of Diet and Health by Gary Taubes
http://www.amazon.com/Good-Calories-...ce/dp/14000334
62/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1250449966&sr=1-1
which explores the history of cholesterol and heart disease.



Also see the work of �rpád Pusztai.

I took a look at it and it appears to be one study that he did that
wasn't even focused on GMO, but that happened to notice effects on
rats from GMO potatoes. The study was surrounded by controversy and
Pusztai apparently was fired from the institute.
You are such a hack. I have very little interest in trying carrying on a
conversation with someone who has no interest in hearing.

"In February 1999, 30 international scientists from 13 countries
published a memo supporting Pusztai. On February 19 the Royal Society,
which is at the "forefront of defending GM technology" and does not
normally conduct peer reviews, publicly announced a peer review
committee would review his work and on May 18 the board issued the
results at a press conference condemning Pusztai. The same day the House
of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee also attacked
Pusztai. Behind the scenes coordination was partly revealed by a memo
showing that the government had set up a Biotechnology Presentation
Group which used both findings to publicly support GM in Parliament only
three days later. The Royal Society had also set up a "rebuttal unit"
headed by Rebecca Bowden to push a pro-biotech line and counter opposing
scientists and environmental groups. Dr Bowden confirmed the groups role
was to coordinate biotech policy but denied it was a spin doctoring
operation.[6]
Pusztai experiment was eventually published. Because of the
controversial nature of his research the 1999 data paper, co-authored by
Dr Stanley Ewen, was seen by six reviewers - three times the usual
number. Five gave it the green light to be published in The Lancet, the
only reviewer arguing against publication was Prof John Pickett of the
government funded Institute of Arable Crops Research. After consulting
with the Royal Society, Pickett broke the protocols of peer review by
publicly attacked the Lancet for agreeing to publish the paper.[9] The
paper - which used data held by Dr Ewen and so was not subject to James
veto on Pusztai's work - showed that rats fed on potatoes genetically
modified with the snowdrop lectin had unusual changes to their gut
tissue when compared with rats fed on non modified potatoes. [10][11] It
has been criticised on the grounds that the unmodified potatoes were not
a fair control diet.[12] Three days after accepting the paper for
publication and announcing it was also considering publishing a second
research paper by another team of scientists who had looked at the same
GM protein used in Dr Pusztai's potatoes and found that it binds to
human white blood cells, The Lancets editor, Richard Horton, received a
"very aggressive" phone call from Sir Peter Lachmann, the Secretary of
The Royal Society and President of the Academy of Medical Sciences,[13]
calling him "immoral" and threatening him that if he published the paper
it would have implications for his personal position as editor. Lachmann
admits making the call but denies that what he said was a threat and
claims the call was to "discuss his (Hortons) error of judgment" in
publishing the paper.[14][15] Following publication, co author Dr
Stanley Ewen, claims he found his career options "blocked at a very high
level" and retired. The potatoes were subsequently destroyed, along with
all details of their modification and Cambridge Agricultural Genetics
subsequently ceased business.[6]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/�rpád_Pusztai


That's one study, compared to how many that have found no effects?
Who can afford the money for studies? As with science articles, science
research usually pleases the funder.
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/...al.pmed.004000
5




Organic products are fine if you want to buy them and can afford to
pay 2X. Â* In developed countries, many people can afford that
option. Â* But it's not the case in 3rd world countries, where GMO
crops offer big advantages to feed hungry populations. Â* Â*Two of which
are higher yields and less use of pesticides, which is good for the
environment and cost.

Exposed: the great GM crops
mythhttp://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/exposed-the-gre...
m-crops-myth-812179.htmlhttp://www.countercurrents.org/sharma210309.htm

Actually the resistance to Roundup (whatever) allows the use of more
pesticides.


Besides Roundup, GMO crops have been developed to be specifically
resistant to both insects and disease. That means farmers use LESS
chemicals because the crop is naturally resistant to insect and
disease.
This means that more people are eating the toxins from Bacillus
thuringiensis, and in greater quantities. The ban of Starlink corn was
due to its obvious allergenic properties. What damage is caused by less
obvious allergies? Why are we the guinea pigs? Even the breeders of
Starling concede that resistance will eventually develop to Bacillus
thuringiensis toxins by crop pests. At present, the best we can do is to
slow down this development.

So, it's not true that in the case of all, or even most GMO
it leads to the use of more chemicals and in the specific case of
pesticides, it clearly leads to LESS being used. Again, you are
only looking at the negatives, because of obvious bias.

As far as Roundup, yes in that case it allows the crops to then be
sprayed with Roundup to kill weeds. But the question becomes how
much more yield do you then get, what would the farmer use to treat
the weeds if Roundup could not be used, etc.


Here's what the UN, which is clearly no mouthpiece for US business
interests has to say about GMO

http://www.fao.org/english/newsroom/focus/2003/gmo7.htm

Potential benefits for the environment
For god's sake, this was written by a reoprter. Potential "IF"

More food from less land: Improved productivity from GMOs might mean
that farmers in the next century won't have to bring so much marginal
land into cultivation.
Already gave you one study where it is shown the GMO crops don't produce
larger crops.

Golden Rice has been a complete failure as the the amount of vitamin "A"
in it is insignificant.

GMOs might reduce the environmental impact of food production and
industrial processes: Genetically engineered resistance to pests and
diseases could greatly reduce the chemicals needed for crop
protection, and it is already happening. Farmers are growing maize,
cotton and potatoes that no longer have to be sprayed with the
bacterial insecticide Bacillus thuringiensis - because they produce
its insecticidal agent themselves


And if the problems of ingesting Bacillus thuringiensis toxins weren't
enough you continue to over look the dangers that have been enumerated
for any GMO crop. Some GMOs may turn out to be benign, but in the mean
time we are guinea pigs.



THe pesticides and herbicides in turn kill off the soil
ecology exacerbating the loss of top soil. Turns out the less top soil
you have, the more chemical fertilizers you have to use, so you end up
having to use more and more chemferts as the topsoil disappears, while
at the same time poisoning the water supply for people, and creating
huge dead zones in the ocean where nothing can live.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_zone_(ecology)

If we did not have those pesticides, herbicides, etc available, food
would cost a lot more and a lot more people in the world would be
starving. This more balanced view is expressed by the UN, as
opposed to the shrill voices on the extremes.


The point is, that with out topsoil, there won't be agriculture.



So GMOs don't give higher yields (they usually allow longer shelf life
and show less bruising, nothing to do with flavor or nutrition), and
they are a disaster for the environment.

If that were true, then you don't have to worry. Because farmers
would not pay more for GMO seed and use it if it did not produce
higher yields. So, obviously it does work.

Farmers are just figuring this out. Farmers are like the rest of us and
are susceptible t advertising. This isn't an argument. It's speculation.


This issue is like so many others. Â* You can focus on alleged bad
aspects, that have little basis and blow them all out of proportion.
Or you can look at the big picture, which offers many benefits and
close to zero risk.

I would just like to choose my food, but the government won't allow the
identifying of GMO foods. Your only chance to avoid them is to eat
organic. You'll also get to avoid loading your body with more unnatural
chemicals.http://www.foodnews.org/fulllist.php



Also, there have been a couple of recent studies that showed that
organic produce had exactly the same nutritional content as the
equivalent regular crop. Â* They do have the advantage of not having
chemicals used to produce them.. Â* But I can only wonder, in this day
where everyone is cutting corners on ethics, how much produce that is
sold as organic actually has some chemical used on it at some
point.

Commercially grown fruits and vegetables are less expensive, are
prettier to look at, contain approximately 10-50% of the nutrients found
in organic produce, are often depleted in enzymes, and are contaminated
with a variety of herbicides, pesticides and other agricultural
chemicals.

According to you. Now let's take a look at what some very credible
institutions have to say:

Mayo Clinic:
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/org...SECTIONGROUP=2
I have no idea why the Mayo Clinic would be a show place for this kind
of misinformation.
However the toxic load of agricultural and industrial chemicals that
each of us is carrying in our tissues is real and not imaginary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_burden
http://www.chemicalbodyburden.org/
http://www.ewg.org/featured/15
http://www.ewg.org/node/15952

Nutrition. No conclusive evidence shows that organic food is more
nutritious than is conventionally grown food. And the USDA — even
though it certifies organic food — doesn't claim that these products
are safer or more nutritious.

The USDA is to promote agricultural sales, and is controlled by factory
farmers.

"The "real environment," personified by Combest, is a self-perpetuating
cycle of money, votes and political power that has made agriculture one
of Washington's most entrenched special interests, even as the number of
farmers has dwindled to about 1 percent of the population.

On the inside, it's a wheel of fortune for everybody involved, including
farmers, lobbyists and farm-state congressmen. Taxpayers pick up the
tab: a record $23 billion in farm subsidies last year. For critics,
subsidies are a costly anachronism in a country that long ago moved from
its agrarian base.

Critics also contend the system encourages unhealthy eating. Corn
subsidies lower costs of grain-fed meat and sweeteners used in soft
drinks. Consumers generally pay full cost for fruits and vegetables,
most of which are not subsidized."
http://www.floridafarmers.org/news/articles/Farmlobby'spowerhasdeeproots.
htm

and a little off topic but still of interest.
http://www.foodpoisonjournal.com/200...tion/usda-sees
-the-light-on-e-coli-o157h7-and-meat/


http://redgreenandblue.org/2009/08/0...-you-says-infl
uential-uk-agency/

The Food Standards Agency in the UK has declared that, “… there are no
important differences in the nutrition content, or any additional
health benefits, of organic food when compared with conventionally
produced food.�

In a comprehensive study, researchers from the London School of
Hygiene and Tropical Medicine examined more than 50,000 studies on the
nutritional value of foods going back to 1958. Of these, 55 met the
criteria of the project. Dr Alan Dangour, the principal author,
commented on the marginal differences found during the studies, “A
small number of differences in nutrient content were found to exist …
but these are unlikely to be of any public health relevance. Our
review indicates that there is currently no evidence to support the
selection of organically over conventionally produced foods on the
basis of nutritional superiority.�


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0807082954.htm

ScienceDaily (Aug. 9, 2008) — New research in the latest issue of the
Society of Chemical Industry’s (SCI) Journal of the Science of Food
and Agriculture shows there is no evidence to support the argument
that organic food is better than food grown with the use of pesticides
and chemicals.

Dr Bügel says: ‘No systematic differences between cultivation systems
representing organic and conventional production methods were found
across the five crops so the study does not support the belief that
organically grown foodstuffs generally contain more major and trace
elements than conventionally grown foodstuffs.’






Journal of Applied Nutrition, Vol. 45, #1, 1993.

http://www.rawfoodlife.com/Articles_...vs_commercial_...


Another link that doesn't work.
http://www.rawfoodlife.com/Articles_...commercial_foo
d/organic_vs_commercial_food.htm
Doesn't or you are incompetent? It works.
and another for good measure. Try not to **** them up.
http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs...55301750164244


When French researchers compared the differences in lycopene, vitamin C
and polyphenol content of organic versus conventional tomatoes, they
found that the organic tomatoes had somewhat higher levels of vitamin C
and polyphenols, which was not surprising given that the tomatoes
probably produce these to fend of pests. Â*If they get no help from
commercial pesticides, they will produce more of the natural variety.

Were these identical tomatoes grown two different ways or did they
just go out and buy some similar organic and non-organic? If it's the
latter it clearly has no validity. And at best they say "somewhat
higher levels of C and polyphenols, not exactly a ringing
endorsement.

There are plenty of these studies where one trial they find some minor
differences between organic and non-organic and then next study they
find no statistical difference . Again, it comes down to balance.
Here's a good example where a Rutgers food scientist discusses how
frequently these studies are taken out of context, only the ones
showing some difference are cited, etc.

http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsI...ews_detail.asp


- Dr. Joseph Schwarcz
chair of the ACCN Editorial Board,


To JK, I'd say if he chooses his store bought foods very carefully,
there is no reason they can't be part of a LC plan. Â* The problems are
that there aren't that many LC choices and in general, the ones that
are available don't taste very good, especially the frozen ones.
The foods prepared in the store and sold non frozen, where available,
can be good choices. Â* Here, the local Shoprite has wood grilled
chicken, shrimp, fish, vegetables, etc. Â* And most supermarkets have
roasted chickens available which are an excellent choice.

As a rule, processed foods are more ©¯energy dense©˜ than fresh foods:
they contain less water and fiber but more added fat and sugar, which
makes them both less filling and more fattening. These particular
calories also happen to be the least healthful ones in the marketplace,

So now you're arguing in a LC newsgroup that fat is bad too?
Canola, safflower, and soy are high in omega-6 fatty acids.
I still like butter and olive oil.
However we come back to GMOs. GMO corn fractions are used extensively in
processed foods.

baking powder
Not to be confused with baking soda (bicarbonate of soda, sodium
bicarbonate), baking powder is a mixture of chemical leavening agents
with starch. The starch in every common baking powder is corn starch,
but Hain Featherweight baking powder uses potato starch. I've only found
it in "health" or "whole food" markets.

caramel
Caramel is cooked sugar, often used for flavoring or coloring. You'll
find it in soft drinks, especially colas, and in dark breads. You can
make caramel from cane or beet sugar, but commercial food producers
often use corn syrup. Jolt Cola was an exception, but no longer: they've
switched from cane sugar to corn syrup.

confectioner's sugar
Confectioner's sugar is ordinary table sugar, reduced to a fine powder.
To keep the powder from caking, manufacturers commonly add corn starch
to it. Domino Sugar tells me their 10x confectioner's sugar is about 2%
cornstarch. A rec.food.cooking contributor gave 4% as a typical
fraction, but another correspondent claims it can run as high as 30%.
Trader Joe's Organic Powdered Sugar is made with tapioca starch instead.
It's not available year-round, unfortunately, but only through the
winter holiday season.

corn-anything
Any food or ingredient with corn in its name is certain to be a problem,
including whole corn, corn flour, cornstarch, corn gluten, corn syrup,
corn meal, corn oil, and popcorn. The only exception that I know of is
corned beef, so-called because it's cured with coarse salt that
resembles kernels of corn. But processed meats often contain dextrose,
food starch, or corn syrup, so don't assume that corned beef is
corn-free. In cooking, you can usually substitute arrowroot powder for
cornstarch.

dextrin, maltodextrin
Dextrin and maltodextrin are thickening agents, often made from corn
starch. You'll find them in sauces, dressings, and ice cream.

dextrose (glucose), fructose
Dextrose (also known as glucose or "corn sugar") and fructose ("fruit
sugar") are simple sugars that are often made from corn. Dextrose is
used in a variety of foods, including cookies, ice cream and sports
drinks such as Gatorade. It also shows up in prepared foods that are
supposed to come out crispy, such as french fries, fish sticks, and
potato puffs. It's common in intravenous solutions, which could be quite
dangerous. Fructose is usually seen in the form of high fructose corn
syrup, but makes an occasional appearance on its own.

excipients
Excipients are substances used to bind the contents of a pill or tablet.
My dictionary mentions honey, syrup, and gum arabic, but corn starch is
also a possibility.

golden syrup
Golden syrup is a sugar syrup, sometimes a mixture of molasses and corn
syrup, also known as treacle. I've found it in cookies and candy, mostly
in Canada. Tate & Lyle's Golden Syrup is purely from cane sugar, however.

glucona delta lactone
Glucona delta lactone ("GDL") is a recently-appearing additive in cured
meats. Its appearance in this list is provisional, as all I really know
of its origin is that it's made by Archer Daniels Midland, a world-wide
giant in the manufacture of corn products.

invert sugar or invert syrup
Invert syrup is enzymatically treated bulk corn sugars, used because
it's not so thick as corn syrup. I've noticed it in cookies, but don't
know where else it might turn up.

malt, malt syrup, malt extract
Malt is germinated grain, often barley. But it can be any grain: corn
and rice are also common. They're much cheaper than barley, and so
unspecified malt is probably not barley. Malt appears in alcoholic
beverages, soft drinks, chocolate, and breakfast cereals, among other
places.

mono- and di-glycerides
Mono- and di-glycerides are often found in sauces, dressings, and ice
cream, where they modify (improve?) the texture of the finished product.
Glycerides are made from both animal and vegetable fats or oils, corn
included. Vegetable mono- and di-glycerides are sometimes labelled as
such, but I've never seen animal glycerides so marked.

monosodium glutamate or MSG
MSG is a "flavor enhancer" used in many packaged foods, particularly
prepared meals and instant soups. Chinese food is a major source of
added MSG: reactions to it are sometimes called "Chinese restaurant
syndrome". Alert Reader Beverly noticed that the MSG in Accent flavor
enhancer is described on the container as "drawn from corn". I'm told
that this is commonly true of MSG in US-made foods, but not in imported
oriental products. The MSG Myth site also describes corn as a source of
MSG.

sorbitol
Sorbitol is a sweet substance (but not a sugar) that occurs naturally in
a number of fruits and berries. It's produced commercially by the
breakdown of dextrose. It's used as a sugar substitute for diabetics, in
the manufacture of vitamin C, and in some candies. Readers tell me it
also appears in oral hygiene products such as toothpaste and mouthwash.

starch, food starch, modified food starch
Added starch in foods can come from any of several sources, but corn
seems to be the most common. Unless the type of starch is specified,
it's likely that corn starch is present.

sucrose
Sucrose usually means cane sugar, but Craig Gelfand has spotted an
English candy whose ingredients included "sucrose (from corn)".

treacle
Treacle is a mixture of molasses and corn syrup, also known as golden
syrup.

vanilla extract
The major brands of real vanilla extract all have corn syrup in them. (I
haven't checked imitation vanilla flavorings.) There are vanilla
extracts without corn syrup; a local brand is Scotts of Acton, MA.

vegetable-anything
Unless you know exactly what the vegetables are, you should be
suspicious of any ingredient with vegetable in the name, including
vegetable oil, vegetable broth, vegetable protein, vegetable shortening,
hydrolyzed vegetable protein, and vegetable mono- and di-glycerides.

xanthan gum
Xanthan gum is a common thickener, the fermentation product of the
bacterium Xanthomonas Campestris. X. Campestris can be grown in various
media, including bulk corn sugars. Some brands of Xanthan gum claim to
be corn-free; I don't know what growth medium they use. Because Xanthan
gum is very cheap, its applications are still growing. You'll often find
it in salad dressings, mayonnaise, and fast-food "milk shakes". I've
also seen it in cream cheese and I'm told it's in Egg Beaters egg
substitute.

zein
My dictionary tells me that zein is "a soft, yellow powder obtained from
corn, used chiefly in the manufacture of textile fibers, plastics, and
paper coatings" or "a man - made fiber produced from this protein". A
helpful netizen tells me that zein is the usual encapsulant for
time-release medications.
http://www.vishniac.com/ephraim/corn-bother.html
--------

All these products my not be tainted with GMO detritus (antibacterial
markers, Cabbage Mosaic Virus, and odd allergens produced from
spliceosomes encountering unrecognized proteins from injected genes),
but I prefer not to take the chance.

Same thing goes for soy products, canola oil, and cotton seed oil.

In any event all these products are highly refined. Take white bread. In
milling white flour, some 26 nutrients are removed and 6 are replaced.
Because of these 6 nutrients, it is called "enriched".
I don't
think JK's intent was to buy prepared foods that are loaded with
sugar. As others have pointed out, there are some prepared food
choices in most supermarkets that are fine for LC. Examples, which I
already cited are roasted chickens,
(injected with water, salt, high fructose corn syrup, and spices.
Possibly leading to contamination.)
grilled shrimp,
shrimp farms cause incredible environmental destruction.
chicken,
Poor *******s, life is **** (so crowded in cages that beaks are cut off
to prevent cosmetic damage, which would hurt sales, antibiotics,
tranquilizers, ect.) and then they die a horrible death.
fish
(PBDE, PCB, methylmercury, dioxin [need to select fish carefully])
vegs, all of which are available at my local supermarket.


which is why we call the foods that contain them ©¯junk.©˜ Drewnowski
concluded that the rules of the food game in America are organized in
such a way that if you are eating on a budget, the most rational
economic strategy is to eat badly ¶Z and get fat.

No surprise there. And your solution is what? Apread FUD by telling
Are you still writing in English?
them that non-organic is unsafe? HAve them eat organic food which
costs 2X more than the regular version and 3-4X the cost of junk food?
I usually pay a surcharge of 50% for organic (I don't always buy organic
[depending on the product], and sometimes the price is the same), and
the full price of junk food should include eventual medical intervention.



This perverse state of affairs is not, as you might think, the
inevitable result of the free market. Compared with a bunch of carrots,
a package of Twinkies, to take one iconic processed foodlike substance
as an example, is a highly complicated, high-tech piece of manufacture,
involving no fewer than 39 ingredients, many themselves elaborately
manufactured, as well as the packaging and a hefty marketing budget. So
how can the supermarket possibly sell a pair of these synthetic
cream-filled pseudocakes for less than a bunch of roots?

For the answer, you need look no farther than the farm bill. This
resolutely unglamorous and head-hurtingly complicated piece of
legislation, which comes around roughly every five years and is about to
do so again, sets the rules for the American food system ¶Z indeed, to a
considerable extent, for the world©ˆs food system. Among other things, it
determines which crops will be subsidized and which will not, and in the
case of the carrot and the Twinkie, the farm bill as currently written
offers a lot more support to the cake than to the root. Like most
processed foods, the Twinkie is basically a clever arrangement of
carbohydrates and fats teased out of corn, soybeans and wheat ¶Z three of
the five commodity crops that the farm bill supports, to the tune of
some $25 billion a year. (Rice and cotton are the others.) For the last
several decades ¶Z indeed, for about as long as the American waistline
has been ballooning ¶Z U.S. agricultural policy has been designed in such
a way as to promote the overproduction of these five commodities,
especially corn and soy.


Again, you need some sense of balance. I agree that farm subsidies
have the effect of somewhat lowering prices of grains and soybeans.
However, the effect on the price of products like twinkies isn't
huge. For proof you need only look at actual grain prices. For
example, wheat which is a principal ingredient of those twinkies,
tripled in price from 2004 to 2008.
American subsidized crops are still pushing Mexican farmers and workers
off their fields. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1228-07.htm
That tripling dwarfed any
A CONVERSATION WITH- MARION NESTLE
Q. You say the food industry produces 3,800 calories a day for every
person in the United States, up from 3,300 calories a day in the 1970's.
How does this amount compare with the number of calories we need?

A. The usual figures are 2,200 calories a day for women and 2,500 for
men. Of course, we know that people are eating more than that, because
we know they are gaining weight. Are people less active? Definitely. But
they're also eating more.

Q. How does the food industry promote overeating?

A. Just by promoting eating. By spending $10 billion a year in direct
media advertising. That is so much more than is spent on health and
nutrition education, you can't even put them in the same stratosphere.
The campaign for fruits and vegetables spends about $2 million a year on
public education.

The food industry spends another $20 billion a year in indirect
marketing, which would include things like the McDonald's Mealtime Set
and soft-drink makers' putting their logos on school scoreboards. These
practices are so acceptable that people think drinking soft drinks all
the time is normal. You're being told in a thousand ways, every time you
set foot in a restaurant, to eat more. Their job is to sell you food, to
sell you drinks, to sell you appetizers and desserts.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...FF93AA25751C0A
9649C8B63
effect of government subsidies, yet those twinkies were still
relatively modest in cost and obviously any impact on sales was very
small.
You can have mine.

And the recent "overproduction" of corn and soy was targeted by the
govt not for food, but to generate ethanol and biodiesel for energy
usage. In the process the cost of all the grains, soybeans, corn,
etc went up about 3X. So, if price of these crops were as
significant in determining what people eat, then we should have seen a
big shift over to your roots. Yet, we did not. People are just
paying 2x for the same bag of Doritos.

Ain't it wonderful what $10B in advertising can do, but it has nothing
to do with the healthiness of eating them. Junk Food --- Illness
--
Racial injustice, war, urban blight, and environmental rape have a common denominator in our exploitative economic system.Â*
~Channing E. Phillips

http://tinyurl.com/o63ruj
http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm